Jacob, I believe that you misunderstand the context of the word ‘right’. In this case it is being used to imply ‘best’. To be more specific ‘might’ being the best measure of effectiveness. If a public army, funded and supported by the State, can draw upon a greater degree of ‘might’ than a private army then it is indeed better (or ‘right’).
No no no, right is not going to be equated with the word “best”, that’s a clear semantics ploy and completely convolutes and obfuscates our discussion.
“Best”, incidentally also is subjective because it begs the question: to whom? OR for whom?
And all of this ignores the more pressing question of why it is in the interests of myself and tens of millions of other Americans who oppose the government’s military escapades to have their money stolen to fight to protect our ‘allies’, or to fight preemptive wars with fabricated proof of weapons of mass destruction, or to have 700+ bases in 130 countries around the world.
A standing army to protect our borders, with “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations – entangling alliances with none” (Jefferson) is a lot different than a world wide empire that makes preemptive strikes based on shoddy intelligence information.
Again, if you want to get involved in the affairs of other nations, pick up a gun and go fight yourself. Or organize with others to hire and train a mercenary army with your own money.
Don’t drag the rest of us in to your warmongering with the force of the government, and the argument that the majority (might) makes right. Do what you think is right, don’t force others to do the same.
Yet you think it’s ok to steal from others in order to have a big military to squish everyone else. Can’t you see the immorality in that?
Publicly funded = theft.
Jacob, I’m going to keep repeating this until you address it. You are assuming a very old style of military use and war that does not currently exist anymore. Large armies that simply invade other countries do not exist outside of the US, and to little success as demonstrated in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Contemporary imperialism is much more political than military, Jacob. You are not living in a modern world if you think otherwise.
Whats hilarious is that Jacob and Twilly are on the same side here, yet are still bickering about imagined differences.
Heads up Jacob, Twilly isn’t one of us. (ie hes a non-libertarian). And he just said that might makes right, in a very convoluted way.
So your conclusion is completely immune from the facts of the event. As I thought.
It seems that the contrarians on this forum are of a very low caliber.
I like to think it is because anyone capable of forming a valid argument is also able to indentify one when they see it; meaning that anyone with the capacity for logic is eventually converted leaving only those people who are unable to engage in logical debate in the opposition.
The name is ‘Lord Shore-Twilly’, not ‘Twilly’, and no myself and Jacob are not on the same ‘side’. I don’t support militarism. However I do support the notion that if we are going to have military it should be good.
I have. I thought it through. I guess you’re just a sheep.
It’s never irrelevant. Would you advocate for the deaths of millions of jews for political expediency? Because that’s the line you’re on.
Another worthless contribution that doesn’t actually pass comment upon the discussion, but laced with a petulant cliché designed to include insult.
Translated your post reads: “I have no answer so I am going to respond with an ad-hominem, that way maybe nobody will notice I haven’t actually addressed the point.”
Try again sunshine.
EDIT: Knight: “It’s never irrelevant. Would you advocate for the deaths of millions of jews for political expediency? Because that’s the line you’re on.”
Ever heard of Godwin’s law?
I have already determined he has a low threshold for killing people…
Much like yours. Coincidental, that, eh sunshine?
Yep. Do you know what it ACTUALLY says, rather than what you THINK it says? Hint: it doesn’t say that bringing up the nazis means you’ve lost the argument. If you believe it does, then you clearly don’t know what Godwin’s Law is, which is that on the internet, the longer the discussion, the probability of the nazis being brought up approaches 1. Yeah sunshine, I’ll bet you didn’t actually know that.
Not at all, my inital post actually made an argument. You may want to look that word up, as judging your posts (at least those I have read) the notion is alien to you.
I’ll give you a head start, what part of the following thesis do you object to: ‘a more powerful military will likely be the more successful military’.
Well done, you are:
And I bet you just wiki’d that.
At what?
Well what do you think, billiards?
So, what’s your point Twilly ? More murderers can murder more people ? Next ?
Precisely. At last someone has managed to come to the terms with the fact that in the case of the military might does indeed equate ‘right’ or rather, to be accurate, more effective.
It is just a pity you felt the need to add the irrelevent moralism that doesn’t have any bearing on the discussion at hand. I am not advocating militarism and haven’t done at all in this thread; perhaps you should pay better attention to what has been written.
Next.
I guess you don’t bother to read what people write…I too said that ‘public’ militarism is superior to private armies. But -right- is not the right word. You mean the more might the military have, the ‘better’ they are at their call - mass murder.
Yes, but that also depends on what you mean by successful war…Public militarism is pretty good at total destruction. I take it that in your mind successful war = maximization of suffering ?
I don’t know what pity means ? Something to do with moralism maybe ?
Well, I didn’t say you are advocating militarism (tho maybe you are).